Casey Woodling
I am Assistant Dean of Academic Outreach and Continuing Education at Coastal Carolina University. I also teach philosophy courses as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies. I was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Antananarivo in Madagascar from 2016-2017 where I taught American studies, philosophy, and academic English. Please visit my website (www.caseywoodling.com) for more information on my teaching and research.
less
InterestsView All (11)
Uploads
Papers by Casey Woodling
primarily appeals to two main principles he says should be adopted by all
parties to the debate. Sawyer (2018) criticizes this argument on the grounds that
there are internalist theories that are not consistent with the two principles he
offers, although she takes no issue with the derivation itself. While Sawyer’s
critique is insightful and largely correct, there is a more fundamental problem
with the original argument. The formal proof given in the original paper begs
the question. The informal argument is enthymematic, and all the possible valid
reconstructions require assumptions that can be legitimately rejected by content
internalists. This is significant to point out as someone might think that the
internalist views that Sawyer says are not consistent with the two principles that
drive Yli-Vakkuri’s argument can be successfully challenged and thereby the
original argument defended.
primarily appeals to two main principles he says should be adopted by all
parties to the debate. Sawyer (2018) criticizes this argument on the grounds that
there are internalist theories that are not consistent with the two principles he
offers, although she takes no issue with the derivation itself. While Sawyer’s
critique is insightful and largely correct, there is a more fundamental problem
with the original argument. The formal proof given in the original paper begs
the question. The informal argument is enthymematic, and all the possible valid
reconstructions require assumptions that can be legitimately rejected by content
internalists. This is significant to point out as someone might think that the
internalist views that Sawyer says are not consistent with the two principles that
drive Yli-Vakkuri’s argument can be successfully challenged and thereby the
original argument defended.